We live in a democracy and our politicians need to take a long, hard look at themselves. They are elected to serve at the pleasure of their constituents and their job is to govern FOR THE PEOPLE and not simply to impose their skewed and biased religious views on the rest of us.

It sounds like good legislation but I am sure that because it has strict conditions there will be cases come up that demand the boundaries to be widened. It won't please everyone but will prevent old, frail people being coerced into terminating their lives because they have become a family burden.

If Bill doesn't BackTheBill, then don't back Bill - Gosford Anglican Church noticeboard.

so whats better: quick death run over by a bus or die slowly for 6 months?
Facebook friend died slowly from lung cancer he said people wanted nuffin to do with him
once it became known. dead man walking 'n all, scares people off.

This poem is often read at funerals. The author, Henry Scott-Holland (1847 - 1918), a priest at St. Paul's Cathedral of London, did not intend it as a poem, it was actually delivered as part of a sermon in 1910. The sermon, titled, "Death the King of Terrors" was preached while the body of King Edward VII was lying in state at Westminster.

Similar legislation has been working well in other countries now for decades with no evidence that safeguard measures are being circumvented or people are being terminated against their will. Surely any civilised society should give its people the right to end their own suffering. I consider it the height of arrogance for politicians to deny us that basic right.

The key words in your post are "end their own suffering". There must be unrelievable suffering, a terminal diagnosis and you must be able to ask for the means and do the deed yourself. This should eliminate abuse but will leave a lot of ineligible people dissatisfied.

I heard today that the Victorian legislation is not sure to pass. One MP was arguing that instead, more money should be directed to palliative care. My response was why does one preclude the other ? Let's do both.

If Bill doesn't BackTheBill, then don't back Bill - Gosford Anglican Church noticeboard.

Chinese woman who killed her disabled son forgiven by court, praised on Weibo
By Emily Sakzewski

An elderly Chinese woman who was found guilty of killing her disabled son because she was afraid he would have a tough life after she died has received an unusually compassionate response from the courts and on social media.

The 83-year-old named Huang was found guilty in October of manslaughter over the death of her 46-year-old son Li Mouyi.

Huang, from Guangzhou, north-west of Hong Kong, said she killed her son because of her fear that no-one would care for him after she died.

A Chinese court heard that around about 2:00pm on May 9, 2017, Huang fed her son 60 sleeping pills, covered his face with a cotton pad, and used a scarf to strangle him to death.

She handed herself in to police the same day.

Huang was sentenced to three years' imprisonment with a suspended period of four years.

In their verdict, the court took pity on Huang's predicament.

The head judge in the case, Wan Yunfeng, said the elderly mother deserved mercy even though she broke the law.

"Her tragedy merits sympathy and her emotions behind her acts deserves forgiveness," a translation of the court's verdict said.
According to Chinese media, Huang applied for retirement when she was 47 and had been looking after her son in the years since.

Li Mouyi was entitled to a disability allowance and eligible for admission to a welfare house, however Huang refused the care because she was afraid they could not offer the best support.

"[My son] can't even speak when he gets thirsty, only I can tell," she told the court.